THE TRINITY REVIEW

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare
[are] not fleshly but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high
thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience
of Christ. And they will be ready to punish all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
May, June 1982
Copyright 2003 John W. Robbins Post Office Box 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692
Email: Jrob1517@aol.com Website: www.trinityfoundation.org Telephone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

Ayn Rand, 1905-1982

John W. Robbins

On March 6, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand
died at her apartment in New York City. Rand, a
Russian immigrant, influenced thousands of people
– particularly college students – through her many
books expressing her ethical and political ideas.
She is correctly regarded as one of the moving
forces behind the contemporary libertarian
movement. In 1974, Answer to Ayn Rand, a
comprehensive analysis of her philosophy, was
published. Below are excerpts from the last chapter,
"The Philosophy of Objectivism."
In Who Is Ayn Rand? Nathaniel Branden boasted:
No one has dared publicly to name the essential
ideas of Atlas Shrugged and to attempt to refute
them. With the publication of this book, that
statement no longer stands. The clarification and
refutation of Rand’s ideas attempted in this book
have proceeded simultaneously; in large part, their
clarification is their refutation.
Rand once summarized her philosophy while
standing on one foot; we might do the same,
summarizing the logical conclusions of her
premises:
Metaphysics: Indestructible Matter
Epistemology: Skepticism
Ethics: Hedonism
Politics: Anarchism
Her metaphysics, as I have carefully documented,
consists of a belief in the primacy of indestructible
matter. Her epistemology, sensation plus
abstraction, leads only to skepticism, not to
knowledge. Chapter two is a digest of the many
ambiguities and difficulties in Rand’s
epistemological theory which concludes with
Branden’s admission that even though all the
evidence might point to a specific conclusion, one
can never be sure. The next bit of evidence may
overturn the conclusion. This, of course, is
skepticism.
Rand’s ethics, being founded on an amoral choice,
not on the "facts of reality," results in hedonism.
Then her entire ethical edifice collapses because she
has built it on a non-existent bridge across Hume’s
gap.
Her politics, deriving from her theory of the
sovereign individual, leads straightway to
anarchism, not to a society or state, but to a
"voluntary association of men acting only in their
individual self-interest."
It is indeed indicative of the bankruptcy of modern
American philosophy that Rand’s Objectivism
could go so long unchallenged and be so fervently
accepted by so many. Like Plato and Aristotle, she
has sought to confute the sophists, only to originate
a philosophy that confirms the perennial sophistry
of secular philosophy. Philosophia perennis is,
ultimately, but futile speculation designed to show
 2
The Trinity Review May, June 1982
that man and man’s mind are indeed autonomous
and independent of their Creator. Secular human
philosophy, like secular theories of history, is
cyclical: It turns from great theoretical systems
giving a comprehensive view of reality to critiques
of these systems, which critiques then result in
skepticism. When the depths of skepticism are
reached, some new philosopher erects another
magnificent edifice of human thought, only to have
that edifice eroded by the logical criticisms of other
scholars, resulting in a new skepticism. So the cycle
turns, from the sophists to a Plato, from Plato to the
sophists; from the sophists to a Thomas, from
Thomas to the sophists; from the sophists to a
Spinoza, from Spinoza to the sophists; from the
sophists to a Kant, from Kant to the sophists; from
the sophists to a Hegel, from Hegel to the sophists.
One might conclude that secular philosophy is but
the history of failure; that men who try to erect a
Tower unto Heaven, are soon scattered upon the
earth unable to understand each other.
The cyclical nature of the history of philosophy is,
of course, extremely oversimplified as presented
here; but then this book is not designed to be a text
on the history of philosophy; it is merely a critique
of one of the latest figures in the cycle of secular
philosophy. A student of philosophy might soon
question why all secular philosophies have failed to
withstand logical scrutiny, why the cycle of
epistemological optimism and pessimism has
existed for well over 2000 years. The reason can
hardly be because of the superstructure of the
various philosophies that are so diverse as not to
furnish a common explanation. One ought to
examine the infrastructures of the various
philosophies, and there one finds a common
element: the autonomy of man’s mind. All secular
philosophies share the axiom of autonomy, the
belief that man’s unaided intellect can arrive at
knowledge. Objectivism is no exception. Yet the
repeated failures have not resulted in a repudiation
of this axiom, only in more determined efforts to
reach knowledge via man’s own efforts. Lessing’s
famous alternative, between accepting truth from
the hand of God as a gift and eternally searching
for, but never finding, truth, is the alternative faced
by all thinkers and all secular thinkers have chosen
an eternal, endless, and futile quest, just as Lessing
did. The choice as outlined by Lessing is a choice
that must be made by all men. Shall I accept
revelation or not? Is the Bible the Word of God or
not? Non-Christian philosophers (and some
inconsistent Christian philosophers) have chosen
the futile search. Many believe that the search is not
futile at all (particularly the inconsistent Christian
thinkers, like Thomas), but will one day succeed.
Unfortunately, after two and one-half thousand
years of searching, no man has yet established truth
via his unaided intellect. Objectivism has not
changed that fact, for it shares the axiom of
autonomy with other secular philosophies. It, too,
will be eclipsed by a new surge of skepticism, and
rightly so, for it has furnished no good reasons for
believing in the ability of the human mind to create
a system of knowledge.
One supposes that after the scattering of the builders
of the Tower of Babel, those who spoke the same
language attempted again to erect other towers, and
failed. The antipathy of the human mind to
accepting a gift from God, revealed propositional
knowledge, is ever present. It is the explanation for
the cycle of secular philosophy. Faced with the
alternative to accepting knowledge as a gift of God
and finding knowledge on his own, the rebellious
human being will always refuse the gift of
knowledge and seek to erect his own philosophical
system, his own Tower unto Heaven.
As a Christian, one can only hope that Objectivism,
like all other philosophical facades, will soon
crumble, and reveal to the men of the twentieth
century the utter futility of secular philosophies.
This book has been written with the purpose of
speeding the demise of this newest form of secular
philosophical optimism, so that men maybe forced
to admit that the choice is nihilism or Christianity;
skepticism or revelation. The choice is not, as Rand
has said, between Communism and Objectivism, for
those two philosophies are actually quite similar:
Both are materialistic, both are empiricist, and
ultimately, both are anarchistic. Rand escaped
physically from the Communists in the mid 1920’s,
but she has never escaped intellectually from the
Communists. Rather than being diametrically
opposed, Objectivism and Communism share
common premises, and attack a common foe,
 3
The Trinity Review May, June 1982
Christianity. Here the antithesis is unmistakable:
God or Matter? Propositional revelation or
sensation? God’s law or man’s whim? Limited
government or totalitarian anarchy? Only one
system challenges Communism in all its
ramifications, and that system is not Objectivism.
That system is Christianity.
One of the ways in which the damned will be
confounded is that they will see themselves
condemned by their own reason, by which they
claim to condemn the Christian religion.
Pascal Pensees
The Horror File
Political Philosophy
Remember those in prison as if you were their
fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if
you yourselves were suffering.
MOSCOW, May 9 – Evangelist Billy Graham
preached a message for disarmament in Moscow’s
only Baptist church today as a hymn-singing
overflow crowd held an extraordinary service
behind the police barricades in the street outside.
In his sermon Graham told the 1,000 worshipers
that while their first commitment was to Jesus
Christ they must also remember that the Bible calls
on them to "obey the authorities." Speaking on a
major Soviet public holiday – the anniversary of the
victory over Nazi Germany – he sought to use the
memory of U.S.-Soviet wartime friendship for a
new joint disarmament effort. "At that time the
United States and the Soviet Union were allies
against Nazi Germany," he said. "Now we have
another common enemy – the possibility of a
nuclear holocaust."
At the end of his 45-minute sermon, which was
simultaneously translated into Russian, a woman in
her early twenties unfurled a banner from the
balcony reading, in English, "We have more than
150 prisoners for the work of the Gospel." The
banner apparently referred to Baptists who have
been imprisoned for preaching and holding services
without permission. Another banner, also in
English, was simultaneously raised in the aisle
directly in front of Graham. It read, "Deliver those
who are driven away to death."
Graham said later he did not read the messages. He
also declined to approach about 250 people outside
the church, many of whom said they traveled
hundreds of miles to hear him speak but could not
enter the church without tickets. An aide to the
evangelist said privately that Graham did not want
to offend his hosts during his one-week visit
because "he wants to develop this relationship,"
implying that he expects to return to the Soviet
Union presumably for a preaching tour.
Religious services outside registered churches are
forbidden in the Soviet Union, and several believers
said a service in a Moscow street had not been
heard of since the 1917 Communist Revolution.
The woman who unfurled her banner in the church
was detained by plainclothes officers after the
service. It was not known whether she was released.
The service, originally planned for this evening,
was rescheduled for 8 a.m., apparently because that
was the time Voice of America erroneously
announced it would be held.
During his sermon and later in an address at
services at the Yelohovski Russian Orthodox
Cathedral, Graham did not mention religious or
human rights. Instead, he told the audience, "God
can make you love people you normally would not
love. He gives you the power to be a better worker,
a more loyal citizen because in Romans 13 we are
told to obey the authorities."
Both churches were heavily guarded with police
sealing off all roads leading to them. Hundreds of
KGB sec«rity agents, mostly young and well
dressed, were in the congregation that included a
large number of foreigners. Only about one-third of
the people were local worshipers; most of them
were women. Graham and numerous other
churchmen are here for a conference opening
Monday that will discuss reducing the threat of
nuclear war. The conference is organized by the
Russian Orthodox Church, which is paying the bills
for more than 400 foreign visitors representing
many religious groups from all parts of the world.
 4
The Trinity Review May, June 1982
Perhaps because of his prominence in the United
States, Graham is regarded as a star attraction at the
conference. He has been allotted 20 minutes for his
speech instead of the 10 minute slots all other
churchmen were allowed. He also is being driven
around Moscow in a Chaika limousine while the
others are shepherded around in a fleet of buses. In
contrast with the somewhat austere atmosphere at
the Baptist church, Graham spoke at a splendid
service in the Yelohovski Cathedral with bearded
bishops in rich vestments led by Pimen, patriarch of
all the Russians, in attendance. It is unclear whether
Graham plans to see six Russian Baptists who took
refuge in the U.S. Embassy here more than three
years ago. They are seeking to emigrate on grounds
that they were victims of religious persecution.
There are 500,000 Baptists in the Soviet Union,
many of whom are members of unregistered and
therefore illegal congregations. Moscow’s official
Baptist community numbers about 5,000.
– The Washington Post
Theology
For the time will come when men will not put up
with sound doctrine.
The Mansfield Kaseman case – of a Presbyterian
minister overwhelmingly welcomed by National
Capital-Union presbytery (with a larger proportion
of PCUS votes than of UPCUSA votes) – is about
to be put to rest with a decision of the Permanent
Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Piedmont
of the UPCUSA. Opponents of Mr. Kaseman, who
refuses to affirm most of the central doctrines of the
Christian faith, appealed his reception from the
United Church of Christ (perhaps the most liberal of
the major denominations in America) for the second
time to the top appeals court in the UPCUSA.
The heart of the commission’s lengthy decision was
to the point: "[The Presbytery of National Capital-
Union], after careful deliberation, acted reasonably
in determining that Mr. Kaseman’s answers to
(questions) about the Trinity were sufficient in
depth and meaning to satisfy their query." Of
singular importance in the whole affair was the
Commission’s own reflection upon the doctrinal
position of the United Presbyterian Church USA.
The statement calls for careful pondering: "The
arguments presented by both parties to this case
force us to recognize that there are several valid
ways of interpreting the creedal symbols and the
confessions of our faith. Theological pluralism is a
reality which is both desirable and present in our
midst. Whether one begins his/her quest for truth
with faith and experience as the path that leads to
knowledge (creedal or otherwise), or whether one
begins the quest with knowledge (creeds) that leads
to faith, is not an important issue. There is room in
the church for both approaches to reality and for the
honest differences of opinion that will result.
Tolerance is called for – tolerance, sympathy,
understanding and mutual respect and love in
Christ. Mere differences in methodology of Bible
study, in theological investigation and in opinions
need not divide or polarize the church. Jesus Christ
and the realities of the Christian faith are far too big
and broad and gracious to be confined within the
limits of human thoughts and creeds. We must be
instructed and guided by the creeds in our quest for
truth, but we must not stop with that. Led by our
living Lord we must go on and find and test and
confirm the creeds in our own ways – in our own
experience, if we as a church and as individuals are
finally to know the truth that will set us free forever.
This is the approach which Mr. Kaseman has
chosen to follow. National Capital-Union
presbytery has attested to its validity. The
commission believes that it is valid and in accord
with the basic tenets of our Reformed tradition."
– The Presbyterian Joumal
Epistemology
To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in
the truth – and not I only, but also all who know the
truth – because of the truth, which lives in us and
will be with us forever.
Can one really be satisfied with Robert Reymond’s
assertion (with Gordon Clark) that reality conforms
to the law of noncontradiction when the Bible is so
full of seeming paradoxes wherein a thing is both A
and non-A, e.g. God is both three and one, Jesus is
both man and God, the Bible is both the word of
God and the words of men, etc. Finally, can one
 5
The Trinity Review May, June 1982
maintain an ontological qualitative distinction
between God and man and reject an epistemological
distinction between God and man? We think not.
First, a fact exists and has meaning in its total
context which only God can know. Therefore, only
God can truly know a fact.
– Leonard J. Coppes Blue Banner Faith and Life
Education
Then you will know the truth...
I also include as one of the chief distinctive features
of the Christian school that in agreement with what
Scripture teaches in regard to the limitations of
human understanding and the darkening of the
intellect, the school does not hesitate to impart
incomprehensible material to the child.
T. van der Kooy,
The Distinctive Features of the Christian School